A place for discussion
5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
18 Comments
February 15, 2026 2:09 am
I liked not that referendum…
Keir Starmer has drawn up plans under which the UK will ramp up its net zero targets and cede control over its energy policy as part of closer alignment with Brussels. – Telegraph
Starmer is a lame duck held hostage by his far left parliamentary party. Miliband looms large as a favourite of the lunatic tendency, how loony?
Miliband plots solar farms in space in quest to hit net zero
Study suggests using orbiting satellites to capture sun’s energy under clean power plans – Telegraph
Brussels will no doubt approve?
February 15, 2026 2:31 am
The Endangerment Finding, in particular, and the CAGW alarmist movement in general has ALWAYS been a ploy by the well connected to quash the lower classes, and maximize their ability to loot and plunder at will! Keeping the public ignorant of 20th Century history, human nature, and basic geology is the only way to create a populace that can be easily stampeded into the recurring crisis control that our “betters” leverage to maximize power and earnings. Once again, idiots prove useful!
February 15, 2026 2:32 am
I have spent a lot of time walking through the geology of the Mesozoic Neuquen Basin in Argentina. This sedimentary basin starts at about 250 million years ago (Triassic) and ends around 60 million years ago (Cretaceous, with Jurassic Park in between). The geologic strata show cycles of huge changes in the paleo-environment/climate. Anoxic ocean bays collected kerogens, leading to oil deposits. Wandering rivers underwent floods and log jams of both trees and dinosaurs. Huge sand dunes formed, both coastal and internal desert type, and their retained porous nature gathered up copper, uranium, vanadium, and cobalt mineralization (like the Congo in Africa). The geologic evidence is that dynamic Plate Tectonic events, like wandering, tipping, faulting apart, and rotating, are subjected to the additional effects of climate change. I wonder what the dinosaurs thought about CAGW? I wonder how the current CAGW crowd reconciles all of those dynamic events which are still ongoing, to interpret the CAGW signal out of all of that variance.
February 15, 2026 2:34 am
Great news. At long last, the 2009 Endangerment Finding has been officially rescinded by the EPA, with a Federal Register entry to follow soon. The finalized action relies on legal and statutory arguments and not on the scientific alternative rationale in the proposed ruling from last year.
OK then. I can see the reasoning here.
In my view, skeptics of climate alarm would do well to keep sharpening their grasp of the scientific issues as debate on these points will no doubt continue.
Source: From the “Response to Comments” document here
#################
3 Additional Proposed Bases for Rescission of the Endangerment Finding and Repeal of GHG Emission Standards the Agency is Not Finalizing at this Time
3.1 Alternative Rationale for Rescission: Climate Science
As explained in section IV of the preamble for this final action, the EPA is rescinding the
Endangerment Finding on the basis of its interpretation of CAA section 202(a), under which
the EPA concludes that Congress did not authorize the Agency to regulate GHG emissions
from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines to address global climate change.
That legal interpretation is sufficient to support rescission of the Endangerment Finding
and repeal of the related GHG standards.
As the EPA does not adopt or rely on the proposed scientific alternative rationale in this
final action, the Agency does not need to, and is not legally required to, summarize or
respond to comments that address that unfinalized alternative as we consider those
comments to be out of scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, comments related to climate
science are out of scope of this rulemaking. This includes, but is not limited to, comments
on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG).
Nevertheless, in the interest of transparency and to assist the public in understanding the
record, the EPA provides a summary of major themes raised by commenters regarding the
proposed scientific alternative rationale in section V.A. of the preamble. The EPA offers the
preamble section V.A. summary for informational purposes only. The EPA does not in this
rulemaking resolve the underlying scientific debates described below, does not issue a
new or revised scientific determination under CAA section 202(a), and does not adopt or
endorse any particular assessment, study, or comment as a statement of the EPA’s
scientific judgement.
##################
One more thing. After months of being dead in the water, the docket for comments on the DOE’s “Critical Review” report has come to life again. Now there are recent postings of comments made last year, including mine here.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
Thank you for your patience in these matters.
February 15, 2026 2:56 am
America’s New Maritime Plan Is Competing for the Wrong Century
The world market will not wait for American political comfort. A vessel ordered in 2026 will likely operate into the 2050s. If that vessel enters European waters in 2030, it will face ETS exposure and FuelEU intensity requirements. China is heading in that direction, having 700 TEU container ships operating domestically. If the ship’s energy architecture is fossil heavy, it will carry a rising compliance burden over its life.
February 15, 2026 3:08 am
Groundbreaking research published in Nature in December 2022 revealed that environmental DNA (eDNA) found in Greenland, dating to approximately 2 to 2.5 million years ago, proves that northern Greenland was a lush, green landscape, far from the frozen desert it is today.
The DNA, collected from microscopic fragments in soil (clay and quartz), revealed a surprising variety of animals that lived in this habitat:
- Mastodons: The biggest surprise was DNA from the mastodon, an extinct elephant-like creature, proving they inhabited Greenland.
- Reindeer: Evidence of ancestral reindeer.
- Smaller Animals: Rodents, lemmings, and geese.
- Insects: Ants, fleas, and flies.
As this much warmer period in Greenland’s history took place long before any anthropogenic influence on global climate was possible, it must have been the result of natural forces. Claims of AGW seem ridiculous to me.
February 15, 2026 3:35 am
Hello everyone, I hope you’re all doing well.
News from France: PPE3 is very likely to be adopted very soon. There will be a strengthening of nuclear power, which is excellent news (though not for NGOs); the “planting” of 22 offshore wind turbines, which is sheer nonsense; reinforcement of existing onshore wind farms (dismantling old turbines and replacing them with more powerful models, up to twice as tall and two to three times more powerful—given the efficiency and intermittency of wind turbines, I have doubts about the relevance of this gain in power); and a slowdown in solar panel development.
When I think that Jospin forced EDF (Électricité de France) to halt the Superphénix project, which was nevertheless extremely promising. The Socialists had to win over the Greens, after all! Yves Cochet, Green MP for Val-d’Oise, was very pleased with that decision. It is worth noting that Mr. Cochet is now known as a thoroughgoing “collapsologist.” When you see him in interviews, he almost looks pleased as he elaborates on his environmental end-of-the-world scenarios—as if he were just waiting for it to happen. He is also in favor of the French having fewer children to make room for migrants.
At the time Superphénix was canceled, Mr. Cochet said (AI translation to which I entrust the transcription of my messages from French into English): “This power plant had no justification, neither in terms of electricity production, since France already has overcapacity, nor especially from the point of view of the site.” That is still true today: France produces too much electricity relative to the needs of the population. The difference with 1997 is that Superphénix was an innovative and technologically decisive project. The progress represented by that reactor justified continuing the work. By comparison, the 2026 PPE3 will only succeed in making us pay more for electricity, when we could very well have done nothing at all and nothing would have changed.
These new EPR reactors are extremely expensive; the grid will have to be massively modernized; widespread electrification of uses (electric cars, heat pumps, etc.) will be encouraged by this Multiannual Energy Plan. I do not expect it to be a great success (that’s putting it mildly).
Oh, and yes: the EU wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. There are many ways to commit suicide, some more inventive than others. This one is hardly original anymore, and it has the added feature of being extremely slow and painful. Hooray.
